Barnack design

[cliveh]

If Oskar Barnack had been alive to design the M series of cameras, how do Leica users think they may be different, if at all from the present M series? I think he may have made them smaller, lighter and less complex.

 

[mshchem]

Every camera would still have nice engraving on top. M is definitely more of a brick compared to a screw mount.

 

[Don_ih]

I think he may have made them smaller, lighter and less complex.

They aren't much more complex than the actual Barnack cameras. The c, f, and g don't count as Barnack cameras - they were redesigns and bigger than the ones before, The f and g were more complex with flkash sync built in. The c had an improved shutter. Undoubtedly, if he was alive, everything would have proceeded the way it did. Frankly, there's not much difference in terms of handling and size between a Leica II and a Leica M3. It seems to be a natural and necessary evolution of the design.

 

[GregY]

Every camera would still have nice engraving on top. M is definitely more of a brick compared to a screw mount.

M2,M3 & M4 were engraved. Would he perpetually oversee the M series ?..... if he was then imo there would have been no zinc topsheets.

 

[RLangham]

Hard to say. I think he’d appreciate the way the viewfinder was implemented. At the same time I think he’d be a little disappointed that they got significantly taller. Perhaps we’d see something resembling a Canon II series.

Honestly I want to see what SLR he would design, and I’m confident it wouldn’t be the first Leicaflex. The closest thing we have to a Barnack SLR, besides the PLOOT/Visoflex setup, is the early Zenit, which is actually my favorite SLR. It has some typically Soviet flaws but they were way better made than the later Zenits, and in fact I would rate their reliability rather high. And I think that’s because ultimately they were a Leica II copy with a mirror box grafted on.

 

[cliveh]

Hard to say. I think he’d appreciate the way the viewfinder was implemented. At the same time I think he’d be a little disappointed that they got significantly taller. Perhaps we’d see something resembling a Canon II series.

Honestly I want to see what SLR he would design, and I’m confident it wouldn’t be the first Leicaflex. The closest thing we have to a Barnack SLR, besides the PLOOT/Visoflex setup, is the early Zenit, which is actually my favorite SLR. It has some typically Soviet flaws but they were way better made than the later Zenits, and in fact I would rate their reliability rather high. And I think that’s because ultimately they were a Leica II copy with a mirror box grafted on.

Oskar Barnack design an SLR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wash your mouth out with soap and water.

 

[sonora]

A Zenit-C was actually my first "proper" camera and I would also say it's one of my favourites. It also got me into Barnack Leicas (and the M3), because I really loved the size and simplicity. It's funny to think they are still smaller than most "serious" cameras today.

Having used a IIIc/f, M3, some Feds/Zenits, and briefly tried a Leica I, I think the M3 feels like it deliberately tried to remedy common complaints about the screw-mount cameras, while staying true to the original shape and goals. So, presuming Barnack were still at Wetzlar at the time and willing to compromise his vision, perhaps the M cameras would be much like what we have.

Another way it could have gone, perhaps, would be more in the direction of what Maitani was doing at Olympus (specifically the full-frame OM and XA cameras), as the compact and pocketable designs were very strongly inspired by Barnack's work. Maybe not in that specific form or without some of the constraints that were placed on the XA, but definitely holding true to the idea of a lightweight camera that nonetheless has all the features needed for serious photography. Maybe Barnack would have liked the Leitz/Minolta CL/CLE...

 

[GregY]

A Zenit-C was actually my first "proper" camera and I would also say it's one of my favourites. It also got me into Barnack Leicas (and the M3), because I really loved the size and simplicity. It's funny to think they are still smaller than most "serious" cameras today.

Having used a IIIc/f, M3, some Feds/Zenits, and briefly tried a Leica I, I think the M3 feels like it deliberately tried to remedy common complaints about the screw-mount cameras, while staying true to the original shape and goals. So, presuming Barnack were still at Wetzlar at the time and willing to compromise his vision, perhaps the M cameras would be much like what we have.

Another way it could have gone, perhaps, would be more in the direction of what Maitani was doing at Olympus (specifically the full-frame OM and XA cameras), as the compact and pocketable designs were very strongly inspired by Barnack's work. Maybe not in that specific form or without some of the constraints that were placed on the XA, but definitely holding true to the idea of a lightweight camera that nonetheless has all the features needed for serious photography. Maybe Barnack would have liked the Leitz/Minolta CL/CLE...

Can you imagine a CL/CLE with the build quality of a lllg?...... and then a Leicavit since we're dreaming......

 

[ic-racer]

The Barnack Leicas are pretty slow and cumbersome to use with mediocre optics ; just about any thing would be an improvement.

 

[RLangham]

Oskar Barnack design an SLR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wash your mouth out with soap and water.

Was he not involved in at least the PLOOT? At any rate, I really would like to see what he would have done with the technical challenges.

A Zenit-C was actually my first "proper" camera and I would also say it's one of my favourites. It also got me into Barnack Leicas (and the M3), because I really loved the size and simplicity. It's funny to think they are still smaller than most "serious" cameras today.

I'm jealous. My first proper camera was a Canon AE-1P, which is... idk people love them but shutter-speed priority is all backwards to me.

 

[Don_ih]

The Barnack Leicas are pretty slow and cumbersome to use with mediocre optics ; just about any thing would be an improvement.

That's total crap. Anyway.....

 

[GregY]

The Barnack Leicas are pretty slow and cumbersome to use with mediocre optics ; just about any thing would be an improvement.

They're pretty slick with a Leicavit.... & lots of choices for optics. IC.....what's your choice?
I like my lllg.

 

[RLangham]

The Barnack Leicas are pretty slow and cumbersome to use with mediocre optics ; just about any thing would be an improvement.

No. I tell you I got a wartime IIIb and was blown away by how bright the rangefinder spot was, and how nicely aligned. And I’ve see just about every type of rangefinder, combined, separate, German, Soviet, American… most of them dim with time, but even ones that don’t have to have those heavy color gels in the light path to make the dim image distinct enough to effectively focus with. Not so with the Leica! I find I actually focus faster than with other rangefinders.

The viewfinder is small but it’s just there as a convenience. You were meant to use accessory viewfinders from the very beginning, which allowed the system to cater to an extremely wide variety of needs. Frame finders, simple finders with parallax correction, finders with multiple frames, universal finders, right angle finders, even waist-level finders. I think one small problem of the M series is that while it has an extraordinary finder that caters to a number of focal lengths, it’s taller and thus makes accessory finders for odd focal lengths less accurate. So really, the Barnacks had one of the most impressively versatile optical systems of any camera: a well placed accessory shoe and a thick catalog of auxiliary equipment.

And I still maintain that with technique a knob advance Leica is nearly as fast as a double stroke lever advance. The only really cumbersome thing is the shutter speed selection and what do you expect?

 

[Saganich]

He wouldn't like any design he couldn't easily put in his pocket for a nice Alpine walkabout.

 

[sonora]

The pocketability imo is a huge factor what makes Barnacks a real treat to bring with you anywhere. They do disappear into a pocket quite well. I wouldn't say the same of my M3, even with the Elmar 5cm on it.

 

[GregY]

How a camera fits in a pocket has never been on my priority list when choosing a camera.....

 

[snusmumriken]

How a camera fits in a pocket has never been on my priority list when choosing a camera.....

I’ve yet to find a coat with a pocket that takes camera+50mm lens+hood.

 

[cliveh]

I would also sugest that size to weight and tactile feel would be his priority. Is it possible to desiign an M2 with only a 50mm brightline finder, the size and weight of a Leica II, staying with a 3.5 50 mm colapsible Elamar. For me this would be a perfect camera. No delayed action or flash synch required, but keep the lever wind.

 

[Don_ih]

Is it possible to desiign an M2 with only a 50mm brightline finder, the size and weight of a Leica II, staying with a 3.5 50 mm colapsible Elamar.

If you have a finder window for just 50mm, there's no need for lines of any kind. Essentially, what you're describing is a Leica II or III.

 

[GregY]

I would also sugest that size to weight and tactile feel would be his priority. Is it possible to desiign an M2 with only a 50mm brightline finder, the size and weight of a Leica II, staying with a 3.5 50 mm colapsible Elamar. For me this would be a perfect camera. No delayed action or flash synch required, but keep the lever wind.

Clive, to me the M2 has been the quintessential camera for 35mm lenses.....& my favourite M.
I understand that you would find such a camera perfect.....but are we imagining what Oskar B would have designed or just putting his name on what you imagine?
Given that O Barnack left us 90 years ago and Leica rangefinders have evolved. I have a hard time thinking that he would have simplified/skeletonized the same body size.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm fairly certain Barnack would have been on board with the actual evolution of the design. None of it has been that much of a departure from the original.